You mean the one who can't reliably feint without a flanking buddy before he can afford a Cloak of Displacement?Let's see... A solo Rogue is much weaker than a solo Bard, since he can't reliably use SA without a flank partnerIt's really funny that you said this RIGHT AFTER someone posted a feint build.
Actually, even with the Cloak of Displacement... Let's look at some numbers.
I picked 12 CR 12 monsters at random from this list and looked up (though I'm quite sleepy at the moment so feel free to double check my math) the Feint DC for each monster. Note that feinting a non-humanoid creature results in a -4 penalty on the bluff check, and feinting a creature that has an intelligence of 1 or 2 gives a -8 penalty. I've made a special note if a creature has no intelligence, or an intelligence of 1 or 2.
Eldon's modifiers are as follows: 12 (ranks) +3 (class) +3 (Circlet of Persuasion) -1 (Charisma) + 2 (???) = +19 or +17 (magenta prism and circlet of persuasion both give competence bonuses, which do not stack - I'm assuming the +2 came from somewhere else).
Taking 10 via skill mastery, Eldon Gulak has a bluff result of 29 for feinting purposes.
Aeon, Akhana: DC 26 (outsider)
Catoblepas: DC 26 (magical beast)
Dark Young of Shub-Niggurath: DC 24 (Aberration)
Black Dragon, Mature Adult: DC 29 (Dragon)
Green Dragon, Adult: DC 28 (Dragon)
Bronze Dragon, young Adult: DC 28 (Dragon)
Spitting Eurypterid: DC - not intelligent, cannot be feinted (vermin).
Inevitable, Kolyarut: Sense Motive DC 32 (Outsider)
Mohrg, Demonic: DC 24 (Undead)
Qlippoth, Chernobue: Sense Motive DC 28 (outsider)
Tobongo: DC 23 (Plant)
Sea Serpent: DC 25 (Magical beast, intelligence 2)
So he can reliably feint the dark young of shub-niggurath, the demonic Mohrg, and the Tobongo by taking 10 - that's 3 out of 12 monsters. If his bluff modifier was actually +17 instead of +19, he could only reliably bluff the Tobongo. The rest of the time he has to roll his bluff checks, and will have a ~50% chance or worse to successfully feint his target. In some cases he will have a very poor chance (14+/16+ for the Sea Serpent, 17+/19+ for the Kolyarut) and in one case (Eurypterid) it's simply not possible.
It should be noted that none of these creatures have Blindsight or access to True Seeing - both of these will likely become more common as the levels go up.
Now it's important to keep in mind that it's not particularly hard to pimp out your bluff skill. For instance a Mask of Stony Demeanor would provide a +2 bonus on top of the circlet of persuasion for a mere 500 gp. Nevertheless, it's one more thing you need to optimize to make this already incredibly gear-dependent build become truly viable.
@Thomas
I don't mean to rag on your character build by the way, it's a fun design (and I really like that you added a little character bio - sometimes the character aspect of PCs tend to get lost in build threads.
Just to point, if someone is playing a rogue he doesnt SA only if he dont want
Yeah, I bet your rogue doesn't SA oozes because he doesn't feel like it...
You understand what i said
|
Arcane Duelist.Wait, they do? What book is that in? Honestly, I didn't see that anywhere.Just a couple of notes:
1. Rogues can use Arcane Strike to its full potential by taking minor magic talent.
Bards get it first level and don't have to blow a feat on it.
I actually was not referring to the Arcane Duelist. Sorry, I was going to clarify this but the thread had moved on and I didn't think anyone would even respond to me. What I meant was you don't have to blow an EXTRA feat on it. If a Bard wants AS, he can just take it at 1st level.
This was wrong, I realized, since Minor Magic is a Rogue Talent. But Minor Magic is still one of the crappiest options in that group and you're forced into wasting one of them to qualify for a feat that the Bard took with no unnecessary investment.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I actually was not referring to the Arcane Duelist. Sorry, I was going to clarify this but the thread had moved on and I didn't think anyone would even respond to me. What I meant was you don't have to blow an EXTRA feat on it. If a Bard wants AS, he can just take it at 1st level.
This was wrong, I realized, since Minor Magic is a Rogue Talent. But Minor Magic is still one of the crappiest options in that group and you're forced into wasting one of them to qualify for a feat that the Bard took with no unnecessary investment.
I was wondering if that's what you were thinking when I read it. :-) since Rogue talents equal feats, (in a lot of cases) I was thinking two feats as well.
For the archeologist (arguably the most 'rogue-like' of the archtypes) burning a common feat (Lingering performance) means that Arcane strike is viable. (round 1 swift to turn on luck, rounds two and three to turn on arcane strike, lingering keeps your luck going). Rod of extend heroism from 4th on gives you between 80 min and almost 7 hours of +2s to hit/skills/saves on top of luck depending on level.
A dedicated archerologist can (by 4th level) be rocking a (we'll assume 14 dex) 1d6 + 4 (before strength or enchantment bonuses) arrow, coming in at +6 to hit (fate's favoured, Deadly Aim, Pont Blank Shot, precise shot) without heroism, using his first,and third level feats, 4th level rogue talent, and a trait. Depending on buff time, add another +2 to hit (heroism) and depedning on UMD cheese, aspect of the falcon (which will make him immune to polymorph too)
That's from a non-optimization POV.
A half elven melee archeologist can reign down blows with a falcata at first level, and with luck/power attack combo hit and damage reliably, and do pretty substantial damage with a crit (assume 16 strength you're looking at 1d8 + 7 at least, which becomes 3d8 + 21 on a crit). That's at first level. Add in Jingasa/blur/mirror image at higher levels, and you're not missing AC as much.
If all you are looking for is a something the Rogue can do which the Bard can't - I would say poisons. To my knowledge, there is no Bard archetype that deals with the subject - so that is truly something the Rogue can wave in his face.
Granted, Alchemists can use those too (and probably better). And poisons are usually expensive and inefficient - but it is something the Rogue does hands down better.
On most other fields, the Bard can do everything the Rogue can - not necessarily in the same way, but barring some special circumstances (I bet there are some out there!) the Bard is more efficient.
Dealing damage? Inspire courage and its static bonuses are usually more efficient. Doubly so if there are other party members present
Skills? As previously stated - the Bard gets tons of help built in (Bardic Knowledge, Versatile performance) while the poor Rogue only gets two measly skill ranks and a collection of very situational talents. Not to mention the Bard has easier access to pathfinders/3.5 universal band-aid: Magic.
Rogue is a better class to dip one level in than bard IMHO.What does one level of Rogue give you that is better than Arcane Strike and Enlarge Person?
Depends on your other class. Good luck with casting Enlarge Person in Medium or Heavy Armor.
You mean the one who can't reliably feint without a flanking buddy before he can afford a Cloak of Displacement?Let's see... A solo Rogue is much weaker than a solo Bard, since he can't reliably use SA without a flank partnerIt's really funny that you said this RIGHT AFTER someone posted a feint build.
I did not say it was a great feint build, but the idea that all rogue MUST be flanking at all times is false.
I notice you didn't respond to my previous post, Marthkus. Did you miss it on the last page?
Remember that when you are comparing classes, you are comparing classes...not stats and magic items and races, or even archetypes.
However, the Rogue has a unique weakness in that his former shtick of skill points, trapfinding and sneak attack have all been given away to other classes. He's lost his niche in that regard.
And it is extremely difficult to argue the utility of skills vs spells.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that when you are comparing classes, you are comparing classes...not stats and magic items and races, or even archetypes.
I will never do anything remotely like this.
I do not play in such a house-ruled environment to lack these elements and I doubt anyone else does either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you're not doing a class comparison, you're doing build comparisons, and this whole thing is largely meaningless, because you'll keep dragging in stat changes, magic item changes, race changes and archetype changes.
You're in effect trying to build an eclipse of Schroedinger's Bard vs Schroedinger's Rogue.
You wanted answers, I gave you answers on the last page. It was equal parts the bard's greater versatility to self and party, and that the rogue's stuff was given away to others who could perform the same tasks and do more stuff besides.
A starting Bard needs a Cha of 12 or 13 to be effective, he isn't reliant on it. Most of his spells are buff spells that don't need saves.
Make your Rogue and Bard. Identical stats. Give them the same jobs to perform. See how well each does with a default, basic, ignore race build (so that ANY race can use that build). Bard will win in almost all cases.
==Aelryinth
Then you're not doing a class comparison, you're doing build comparisons, and this whole thing is largely meaningless, because you'll keep dragging in stat changes, magic item changes, race changes and archetype changes.
You have to take everything into account.
For example compare a Human sage sorcerer to a human rogue. The sage is probably going to put his favored class bonus into spells (especially if he want to eclipse the rogue). If the rogue puts her favored class bonus into skills that creates a +1 difference to the total skills/per/level between the two. I'm not going to ignore such things (even the things that work against the rogue like gear taxes), because a comparison without them has no value.
NOTE: Really you think bards and rogues are going to have the same stats?
The comparison you want to do has no relevance to anyone's gaming experience.
You can't define gaming experience. We need set parameters, or this whole discussion becomes meaningless. Really the best way *is* just to compare the abilities without getting into builds, because builds allow people with superior system mastery to throw the results into question if both classes are not being built by similarly skilled people.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're refusing to draw any kind of comparison, which makes the conversation largely meaningless.
You have to nail down the movign parts for solid comparison or all you're doing is creating an endless circle (see my earlier post).
Rogue A built for purpose A needs to be compared to Bard A built for purpose A.
Rogue B built for purpose B should be compared to Bard B built for purpose B.
Or you could compare Generalist Rogue vs. Generalist Bard against all purposes.
If you're constantly countering Bard A with Rogue C and Rogue D with Bard X, you're never establishing anything, other than that there are a lot of builds in the game.
Nail it down. Pick your circumstances, and go with the options appropriate for each class in those specific circumstances and compare. Then do the same thing for each new set of circumstances you believe they should be able to perform in. If the Bard built for the purpose in question is consistently able to triumph over the Rogue built for the same purpose in each set of circumstances, you have an answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you're not doing a class comparison, you're doing build comparisons, and this whole thing is largely meaningless, because you'll keep dragging in stat changes, magic item changes, race changes and archetype changes.You have to take everything into account.
For example compare a Human sage sorcerer to a human rogue.
I begin to question the veracity of your arguments, if you are actually comparing a full caster to a rogue... and saying things like, "especially if he want [sic] to eclipse the rogue."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I begin to question the veracity of your arguments, if you are actually comparing a full caster to a rogue... and saying things like, "especially if he want [sic] to eclipse the rogue."Then you're not doing a class comparison, you're doing build comparisons, and this whole thing is largely meaningless, because you'll keep dragging in stat changes, magic item changes, race changes and archetype changes.You have to take everything into account.
For example compare a Human sage sorcerer to a human rogue.
For some reason Marthkus is claiming that in order to "eclipse" the rogue what ever other class you are looking at must have complete ability parity. Anything beyond parity is meaningless until parity is achieved. Because a poorly scaling situational damage increase is a fair substitute for being able to alter the cosmos... or something.
You're refusing to draw any kind of comparison, which makes the conversation largely meaningless.
You have to nail down the movign parts for solid comparison or all you're doing is creating an endless circle (see my earlier post).
Rogue A built for purpose A needs to be compared to Bard A built for purpose A.
Rogue B built for purpose B should be compared to Bard B built for purpose B.
Or you could compare Generalist Rogue vs. Generalist Bard against all purposes.
If you're constantly countering Bard A with Rogue C and Rogue D with Bard X, you're never establishing anything, other than that there are a lot of builds in the game.
Nail it down. Pick your circumstances, and go with the options appropriate for each class in those specific circumstances and compare. Then do the same thing for each new set of circumstances you believe they should be able to perform in. If the Bard built for the purpose in question is consistently able to triumph over the Rogue built for the same purpose in each set of circumstances, you have an answer.
I'm not prepared for the comparison just yet. That will be a different thread.
This thread is just for people to explain why the bard can mechanically eclipse the rogue.
I will point out though the flaws in the parameters others are trying to set up to compare the two classes.
When I do get to my actual comparison to rogue vs world. There will be 1 and only 1 rogue build.
For some reason Marthkus is claiming that in order to "eclipse" the rogue what ever other class you are looking at must have complete ability parity. Anything beyond parity is meaningless until parity is achieved. Because a poorly scaling situational damage increase is a fair substitute for being able to alter the cosmos... or something.I begin to question the veracity of your arguments, if you are actually comparing a full caster to a rogue... and saying things like, "especially if he want [sic] to eclipse the rogue."Then you're not doing a class comparison, you're doing build comparisons, and this whole thing is largely meaningless, because you'll keep dragging in stat changes, magic item changes, race changes and archetype changes.You have to take everything into account.
For example compare a Human sage sorcerer to a human rogue.
Some leeway will be given, but too large of a skill point disparity prevents any sort of eclipsing.
Which eclipsing is the most damning argument. If one does exist there is point to continue arguing. It's like trying to argue for a warrior when there exist the fighter.
|
Bards can easily be better 'skill monkeys' than Rogues via Bardic Knowledge and Versatile Performance (not to mention Loremaster and Jack of All Trades). There is just no way the Rogue's two extra skill points per level can keep up with the avalanche of skill bonuses provided by these abilities.
Means of offsetting the Rogue's advantages with traps have already been noted.
That basically leaves Rogues with Sneak attack, evasion, uncanny/imp uncanny dodge, and talents as things Bards can't inherently do. Bards can get Rogue talents and evasion from archetypes. Improved uncanny dodge is nice, but really the only major thing Rogues have going for them over Bards is Sneak attack... which I personally consider a very powerful combat option. The prevailing opinion on these boards that Sneak Attack doesn't matter because Rogues cannot hit anything bears no resemblance to my actual game experience.
So no, I don't think a Bard can be built to 'eclipse' (i.e. do everything as well or better than) a Rogue... but only because of Sneak Attack.
Bardic knowledge doesn't help the bard eclipse the rogue. That falls firmly in to the "and more" category. Any points thrown into knowledge skills are not being used to do "everything the rogue can".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is pointless because there is no usable parameters, the goal posts keep moving, and there is no real definition of "eclipse" other than some vacuous statements. On top of that the real discussion is supposed to happen in an ambiguous "future" thread. There has been no statements made in favor of the rogue that hold any water even under the shifting goalposts anyways.
The rogue is a crap class and people who play them play them because of the name and fluff of the class and not the mechanics of them. There are other classes that do everything that the rogue does + more, but since they are named other things and have different fluff, people play the mechanically inferior choice. Really nothing more to it than that.
Bard is a tier 3 character, thief is tier 5 by most estimates, and IMHO should be a high 6 with the other NPC non casters. Yes I would lump them in with the experts/warriors/aristocrats. At least the aristocrats and warriors get decent weapon and armor profs. Sadly the adept actually rates higher than the rogue. Not a good place to be.
Rogues do crap for dpr, they aren't the master of skills, they don't have unique abilities anymore, and their tricks very often don't work or require so many inefficient actions/build choices that its just not worth the opportunity cost to play one.
Now if you are the sort of person who doesn't like mechanics, numbers, being credit to team, and in general being effective: Go ahead and play a rogue, its the right class for you. But if you feel that way you might as well pick an NPC class because they are even more optimized for that style of gameplay.
The rogue is a crap class and people who play them play them because of the name and fluff of the class and not the mechanics of them.
I'll tell you this much. I am playing the rogue for their mechanics. I'll let everyone know later how well that works out.
Bardic knowledge doesn't help the bard eclipse the rogue. That falls firmly in to the "and more" category. Any points thrown into knowledge skills are not being used to do "everything the rogue can".Errr... self-evidently false. Knowledge skills are within the set 'everything rogues can do'.
You're rogues have ranks in knowledge? Why?
This thread is pointless because there is no usable parameters, the goal posts keep moving, and there is no real definition of "eclipse" other than some vacuous statements. On top of that the real discussion is supposed to happen in an ambiguous "future" thread. ***Word.
Oh yeah this thread is trash. No new revelation here. That should have been apparent in the OP.
You're rogues have ranks in knowledge? Why?Bardic knowledge doesn't help the bard eclipse the rogue. That falls firmly in to the "and more" category. Any points thrown into knowledge skills are not being used to do "everything the rogue can".Errr... self-evidently false. Knowledge skills are within the set 'everything rogues can do'.
...Because they know things?
...Because they know things?You're rogues have ranks in knowledge? Why?Bardic knowledge doesn't help the bard eclipse the rogue. That falls firmly in to the "and more" category. Any points thrown into knowledge skills are not being used to do "everything the rogue can".Errr... self-evidently false. Knowledge skills are within the set 'everything rogues can do'.
Knowledge(dungeoneering) might be useful.
Knowledge local is almost completely covered by diplomacy's gather information function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While people dont compar builds with specific evaluation paramters all we will have are opinions
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah this thread is trash. No new revelation here. That should have been apparent in the OP.This thread is pointless because there is no usable parameters, the goal posts keep moving, and there is no real definition of "eclipse" other than some vacuous statements. On top of that the real discussion is supposed to happen in an ambiguous "future" thread. ***Word.
Was that sarcasm or acknowledgement?
Why does the bard eclipse the rogue? I seem to have forgotten why. When I looked over the archetypes for the bard, I was unable to remember.
What should I be looking at again?
I working on a case for the rogue, but to do that properly that requires fully understanding the rogue replacement classes and options. This will take quite some time to formulate, as I want to test my theories in actual game play before trying to present them as novel or true.
You pretended that you actually wanted an answer to your question, but since then you've actively evaded any attempts to provide you with an answer, constantly make up spur of the moment decisions based on parameters only you are aware of, and put off meaningful discussion with promises of some future thread which will feature Johnny Super-Rogue who's going to prove everyone wrong.
It's like trying to have a conversation about politics with an insane homeless person.
Regular guy: "Those new taxes are sure going to hurt homeowners."
Crazy person: "Taxes are the moon of the republic devil's goals to McDonald's!!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bardic knowledge doesn't help the bard eclipse the rogue. That falls firmly in to the "and more" category. Any points thrown into knowledge skills are not being used to do "everything the rogue can".
I think you need to nail down "everything the rogue can" if you want this thread to go anywhere - at the moment the definition seems to be shifting from post to post.
I would certainly consider Knowledge: Local a logical skill for the classical rogue.
|
Design Manager
|
I think you need to nail down "everything the rogue can" if you want this thread to go anywhere - at the moment the definition seems to be shifting from post to post.
I would certainly consider Knowledge: Local a logical skill for the classical rogue.
Exactly, set some parameters people can discuss, something like:
1) Damage dealing
2) Social Facility (Skill)
3) Dungeon Navigation (Skill)
4) Total Contribution to Party Effectiveness
5) Ability to maintain effectiveness over the course of an adventuring day.
Etc.
How well can the Rogue and Bard meet those areas? What if anything do they have to give up or trade out to be effective? How many can the base class handle without needing to resort to an archetype? Is there a point where the dynamic shifts between the classes on any or all of these fronts?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the confusion comes from different meanings of the word "eclipse." The impression I get from Marthkus is that the definition he is using means "to contain entirely." One class eclipses another if all the abilities of the second are contained in the first - for example, if you could build a bard, then trim away stuff, adding nothing, and produce a rogue then the rogue is eclipsed. In this sense fighter eclipses warrior, for example, and pretty much every class eclipses commoner.
It's a very specific and hard to meet criterion, but that seems to be why he indicates it makes any attempt to defend the rogue pointless - if there is literally nothing that can't be done by a bard then the rogue is truly doomed. Any one thing the rogue can do that a bard can't prevents the eclipse and gives wiggle room for a rogue niche.
Marthkus, please correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't want to put words in your mouth but this seems to be a common point of contention in the thread.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from different meanings of the word "eclipse." The impression I get from Marthkus is that the definition he is using means "to contain entirely." One class eclipses another if all the abilities of the second are contained in the first - for example, if you could build a bard, then trim away stuff, adding nothing, and produce a rogue then the rogue is eclipsed. In this sense fighter eclipses warrior, for example, and pretty much every class eclipses commoner.
It's a very specific and hard to meet criterion, but that seems to be why he indicates it makes any attempt to defend the rogue pointless - if there is literally nothing that can't be done by a bard then the rogue is truly doomed. Any one thing the rogue can do that a bard can't prevents the eclipse and gives wiggle room for a rogue niche.
Marthkus, please correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't want to put words in your mouth but this seems to be a common point of contention in the thread.
This is basically it.
...Because they know things?You're rogues have ranks in knowledge? Why?Bardic knowledge doesn't help the bard eclipse the rogue. That falls firmly in to the "and more" category. Any points thrown into knowledge skills are not being used to do "everything the rogue can".Errr... self-evidently false. Knowledge skills are within the set 'everything rogues can do'.Knowledge(dungeoneering) might be useful.
Knowledge local is almost completely covered by diplomacy's gather information function.
Knowledge Local vs Gather Information is a time sensitive thing. Quest Giver A tells you someone's name. Knowledge Local can tell you immediately who that person is and possibly where he might be located. Gather Information will allow you to go around asking about who that is and possibly give information to the guy you're trying to find, for ill or good. Best case scenario is to have both which the Bard does(usually). I'll give a more living example below.
Quest Giver Tom: "I need you to get my amulet back from Orik Balderdash.
Bard: I make a Knowledge Local on Orik Balderdash. On an average roll he learns that Orik Balderdash is a local drunk that walks along the docks on his way home.
Bard: "I'll be back in a jiff." Then the Bard goes and makes a Gather Information check around the docks but doing so may alert the Thieves Guild Goons that killed him. Then it becomes a matter of was the Bard able to get the info without alerting them. The Bard has an awesome diplomacy and gets a solid roll but also gets a situational bonus due to him being able to narrow his search faster from his knowledge local.
So I wouldn't pass off Knowledge skills as strictly the And More! group. Sometimes they can be used to amplify your efficiency in other areas.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between knowledge local and diplomacy is the difference between "I already know this, lets get started" and "I don't this, but I can ask around" One takes MUCH more time and possibly money, and requires talking locals, and the fact you are asking around gives away information to possible 3rd parties.
On top of that knowledge local can help identify weaknesses and powers of humanoids. Many players just meta knowledge that sort of thing like "orcs have darkvision" but they really shouldn't.
Knowledge local won't however get you out of trouble or get you in trouble like diplomacy can. So a well built social character should have both.
IDK, for somebody who is into rogues it seems there is a lack of proper appreciation for something so basic.
The difference between knowledge local and diplomacy is the difference between "I already know this, lets get started" and "I don't this, but I can ask around" One takes MUCH more time and possibly money, and requires talking locals, and the fact you are asking around gives away information to possible 3rd parties.
On top of that knowledge local can help identify weaknesses and powers of humanoids. Many players just meta knowledge that sort of thing like "orcs have darkvision" but they really shouldn't.
Knowledge local won't however get you out of trouble or get you in trouble like diplomacy can. So a well built social character should have both.
IDK, for somebody who is into rogues it seems there is a lack of proper appreciation for something so basic.
It's a trap for skill points. It doesn't let you do something new, It only speeds up the process.
And that is assuming the need for knowledge(local) doesn't come up before the character has already gathered some information around the town.
I think you need to nail down "everything the rogue can" if you want this thread to go anywhere - at the moment the definition seems to be shifting from post to post.
I would certainly consider Knowledge: Local a logical skill for the classical rogue.
Exactly, set some parameters people can discuss, something like:
1) Damage dealing
2) Social Facility (Skill)
3) Dungeon Navigation (Skill)
4) Total Contribution to Party Effectiveness
5) Ability to maintain effectiveness over the course of an adventuring day.
Etc.
How well can the Rogue and Bard meet those areas? What if anything do they have to give up or trade out to be effective? How many can the base class handle without needing to resort to an archetype? Is there a point where the dynamic shifts between the classes on any or all of these fronts?
+1
Any melee class will vastly out-damage the rogue. Rangers and Bards, as well as sages, lore wardens, and basically any full caster can do the "skill" make-up better, and are vastly more useful in all facets of the game.
If you are trying to find one class that can do all the things a rogue can do and do them better, you might be able to situationally shoot down all the options. But, a group with a rogue is weaker than a group without one....
But, a group with a rogue is weaker than a group without one....
Analyzing that claim is outside the scope of this thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is basically it.I think a lot of the confusion comes from different meanings of the word "eclipse." The impression I get from Marthkus is that the definition he is using means "to contain entirely." One class eclipses another if all the abilities of the second are contained in the first - for example, if you could build a bard, then trim away stuff, adding nothing, and produce a rogue then the rogue is eclipsed. In this sense fighter eclipses warrior, for example, and pretty much every class eclipses commoner.
It's a very specific and hard to meet criterion, but that seems to be why he indicates it makes any attempt to defend the rogue pointless - if there is literally nothing that can't be done by a bard then the rogue is truly doomed. Any one thing the rogue can do that a bard can't prevents the eclipse and gives wiggle room for a rogue niche.
Marthkus, please correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't want to put words in your mouth but this seems to be a common point of contention in the thread.
Fine. Buy that definition you're right. The Bard does not eclipse the Rogue. Rogues have Evasion and Sneak Attack and even Rogue Talents. Archaeologists get Evasion and Rogue Talents but lose out to Rogues on skill points. So, yes, all Rogues have something they can do that any individual Bard cannot. You're right.
However, that is not the definition everyone else is using. People use 'eclipsing' to mean that, for any particular role (ie: damage dealing, trap spotting, non-Knowledge skill monkey, social manipulation, etc.), you can build a Bard that does that role better than a Rogue built to do the same role. Easily. Heck, of the four I listed, you can build a Bard that does three of the four of them better than a Rogue. And is one of the best buffers in the game, with a host of useful spells.
So, in actual play, there's very little reason to be a Rogue, because whatever you're setting out to do as one (and no build does everything) a Bard can do it better, thus having eclipsed the Rogue's place in a party.
That's (more or less) how people are actually using that term. The fact that you use it differently doesn't make them wrong, in fact, if anything it makes you wrong, since majority consensus actually does determine what terminology (especially phrasing) means in language. Now, this in particular is an obscure bit of terminology in a relatively small community, so you can hardly be blamed for not knowing that...but that doesn't change the way terminology works.
Knowingly using terminology in a way completely different from everyone else is simply poor communication...so I advise against continuing to assert that Rogues are not eclipsed using your own definition of that word. People will misunderstand and your actual point will be lost in arguments about what they think your point is.
So, in actual play, there's very little reason to be a Rogue.
Analyzing that claim is outside the scope of this thread.
We've established that the bard does not eclipse the rogue. The next step is a constructive argument for the rogue. This will analyze whether or not that lack of complete mechanical eclipsing is of any value.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, a group with a rogue is weaker than a group without one....Analyzing that claim is outside the scope of this thread.
So, what you really intend for your original post to say is, "If there is one Rogue build that can situationally do one thing better than another class, and I'm free to change the parameters of the debate any time to prove that there is, and I can add any item or feat or stat to alter my build so that if you outdamage me I'll outskill you and if you outskill me I'll focus in on a single tactic to prove I'm better at that and if you outdo me there I'll demonstrate I can do situationally higher damage, and I can discount as irrelevant skills like knowledges that I personally find to be unimportant, and never accept that the totality of my character must be measured in a setting/equipment neutral environment, then the rogue is not eclipsed. Now prove me wrong."
[/wasteofeveryone'stime]
Fixed that for you.So, in actual play, there's very little reason to be a Rogue.Analyzing that claim is outside the scope of this thread.
I've arbitrarily decided based on parameters specific to myself that the bard does not eclipse the rogue. ***
You guys keep trying to get into a "which class is better argument"
Which I never had any intention of getting into in this thread.
"Better" is a weaker claim than "eclipse". Eclipsed is irrefutable objective superiority from a purely numerical perspective.
The eclipsed you are using simply means "better", which is not what we are getting into.
But, a group with a rogue is weaker than a group without one....Analyzing that claim is outside the scope of this thread.
Folks be needing to stay on thread topic. This is isn't a Rogues suck and this is why thread. This is a "Can the Bard eclipse that which is the Rogue in it's entirety?"
So obviously what does a Rogue bring to the party? The short answer is trapfinding, situational damage and skills. One unfortunate matter is that point buy and realistic leveling is extremely harmful to the Rogue. A Dex build doesn't come online till high levels where you can afford an agile weapon. Till then you are fairly useless in combat from 3-6. The Strength build is annoying from a thematic view. The intelligence build is pretty useless all around since skills don't pay the bills! An all arounder is pretty mediocre compared to others who can consolidate their stats more. Charisma, a classical stat for Rogues must remain a 10 if we wish to be useful.
We can pin down some of his skills. This leaves 3 skill points a level, 4 if you're a 13 Int Rogue for Bluffing. Only two of these skills so far serve as a gate opener(One literally).
Acrobatics
Bluff
Perception
Disable Device
Stealth